My Vote for President Doesn’t Count?!
/The older I get, the dumber I feel. (Oops. Have I said that before?) Truthfully, I keep learning and learning, and ultimately realizing how naïve I’ve been. For example, I have always assumed that the reason the US Constitution is the oldest existing single-document constitution on earth is that it’s the best one. And I never doubted the validity of the electoral college as a means of choosing our head of government – until I learned that many democracies have used the electoral college --- and thrown it overboard! We’re the only country on earth still electing our president that way!
Maybe it’s because I learned my basic civics and government in the 1950s and ‘60s in a peaceful, calm school setting that seemed to cast a positive glow of optimism about life. Whatever the cause, now, at my advanced age, I’m starting to realize how starry-eyed I’ve been. I always thought those guys with the curly wigs and short pants and long stockings – our founding fathers – were well trained in setting up a government, prepared to simply get it all on paper and launch a successful democracy following the War for Independence. It never occurred to me that they might be making it up as they went along, or agreeing to compromises far beyond the perfection they’d imagined – and I’d assumed they’d attained.
And then I joined the League of Women Voters and began to face the reality of our democracy. Surrounded by mature, civic-minded women who’d educated themselves and bravely entered the murky waters of a working democracy, I saw the good, the bad and the ugly. And I saw where the work needs to be done and the improvements made. And then, less than two years ago, I learned about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and I was hooked: Our method of electing a president leaves much to be desired. Perhaps the most disturbing fact I had to face is that, here, in Wisconsin, my vote for president doesn’t even count!
Sometimes we elect the loser
You heard me right: My vote for president doesn’t count. And it’s not just a quirk of Wisconsin. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia all use their constitutional power to elect the president in a way that often makes almost half their votes irrelevant – and has, five times in our history, selected the loser – not the winner– to be president! Maybe you already knew all this stuff. As I share my new insight with smart, educated, dedicated Americans, though, I discover that pretty much nobody understands what the heck is going on with this thing called the electoral college – which has chosen the wrong president 10% of the time! So, I’m going to tell you, and I promise to give you just the facts.
Our US Constitution was ratified in 1788, following a constitutional convention of 116 days and countless votes, each involving heated discussion among representatives determined to protect the unique characteristics of their own states: tiny states vs. large states; slave-holding states vs. free states; northern states vs. southern states... When I learned that the “jewel” called the electoral college was actually a desperate compromise to wrap it all up and finally adjourn, I was disheartened. But then I learned that several other key features of our constitution were ultimate compromises, not works of civic genius.
“Compromise” was the norm
For example, the bicameral legislature (two divisions: Senate and House of Representatives) was a compromise between small states and large states. The little fellas said, “We want equal representation,” so they got the Senate, where each state, no matter its size or population, gets two senators. And the big fellas said, “We want more representatives in congress because we have a lot more citizens,” so they got the House of Representatives, giving each state a different number of reps according to its population.
And surely you learned about the three-fifths compromise when you were in school. The slave states said, “Wait a minute. You can’t ignore our slaves. They’re people too – sort of. We want to count them as part of our population for purposes of representation.” And then their neighbors from the north said, “Okey-dokey, we’ll count each slave as 3/5 of a person, and then you can also pay taxes for your ‘property.’” And so we have the three-fifths compromise.
Another sharp edge between the southern and northern states regarded commerce. The southern states relied on agricultural exports to fuel their economy, and the north favored tariffs as a boon to their economy. The Commerce Compromise took care of that. And then there was the Slave Trade Compromise, guaranteeing the international slave trade until 1808, also to protect the economy of the southern states.
The electoral college compromise was not so much regional in nature as logistical. These were people used to living in a monarchy, bowing to a king whose army they’d just overwhelmed to secure their freedom. They knew they wanted a president who would be “of the people,” one who would never wear (or even seek) a crown, a leader who would respect the individual rights of independent states... but how to identify that leader? Some conventioneers insisted the president must be elected by popular vote: Each white male property-owner would get one vote. But how to conduct such voting in the late eighteenth century? And how could the masses educate themselves to cast a meaningful ballot? Other conventioneers said, “Well, we’re going to have an elected Congress. Why not just let those leaders choose the president?”
The compromise we call the “electoral college”
I’m told they went round and round, taking more than 30 votes, until someone finally came up with the compromise: Each state would select informed, educated white men equal to their total number of national reps who would choose the president based on his merits. And so they wrote that process into the Constitution, never using the term “electoral college.” Article II says:
“Each state shall appoint, in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress... The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot... they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each... sign and certify and transmit...to...the President of the Senate... The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the president...”
So, how has that worked so far? Well, over the course of 230+ years, the process that has come to be called the “electoral college” has chosen the wrong person five times! Seriously, that is the case. In 1824 there was no majority, so the US House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams. In 1876, however, Tilden won the most votes nationally, but Hayes, the runner-up, became president. The same thing happened in 1888, when Harrison, runner-up to Cleveland, became president through this electoral college system. More recently, many of us remember when, in 2000, Gore won the most votes, but Bush became president. And, in 2016, Hillary Clinton had the most votes nationally, but Donald Trump became president. How can this happen?
The “state-winner-take-all” curse
Actually, it’s pretty simple; let me explain. Clearly, each state legislature was empowered by the constitution to choose its electors in its own way (“in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct”). Over time, state legislatures established procedures for these things. Today, 48 of our 50 states have adopted the “state-winner-take-all” approach, so it’s really important that you understand exactly what that means: In those 48 states, the candidate who wins the most votes in that state gets all its electoral votes, regardless of how many votes his/her opponent won. The state legislature does not look at the national vote count in determining whether to appoint Democrat or Republican electors. They look only at the race within their own state’s boundaries. If Candidate A had the most votes in the nation, but Candidate B had the most votes within their state, they choose only electors committed to backing Candidate B, their state winner. This explains how the loser of the vote nationally can be elected by the electoral college.
A few examples will help. In the 2024 presidential election, for example, 62% of California’s votes went to the Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris, and 38% went to Republican Donald Trump. However, all 54 electoral votes in California went to Harris, rendering moot the 38% of California votes that were cast by Republicans. In Texas, all 40 electoral votes went to the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, ignoring the 42% of Texans who had voted for Harris. And in Wisconsin, my state, the race was razor thin, with a difference of 0.9% between the total votes cast within the state for the two presidential candidates. All Wisconsin electoral votes went to Trump, who had 49.7% of Wisconsin’s presidential votes, totally discounting the 48.9% cast for Harris.
Democracy diminished?
Now, consider such decisions taking place in 48 out of 50 states, and you can see how a large percentage of voters in any of those states are likely to believe their vote simply doesn’t count. So why even vote? If you live in a blue state, red votes don’t really count. And, if you live in a red state, blue votes don’t really count. If we actually had a system by which we elected the president by the equation “one person = one vote,” people might be much more motivated to educate themselves about the candidates and get out and vote.
So, what shall we do? Get rid of this thing now called the electoral college? You do realize that would take a constitutional amendment, right? Do you have any idea what such a process would require? First we’d need either a 2/3 vote agreement in both the House and the Senate OR the request for a constitutional convention agreed upon by 2/3 of our states. If that miracle came to pass and an amendment were put forward, it would go into effect (i.e. change the constitution) only when ratified by 3/4 of the states. What are the chances of that?! Well, more than 11,000 attempts to amend the constitution have been made in our country’s history; 27 have been successful. And only 33 of those 11,000+ ever even made it to the states for attempted ratification. Since 1992, the House and Senate have never achieved a 2/3 agreement on a proposed amendment, although 1400 have been tried in those 30+ years.
No, let’s not hold out for a constitutional amendment. A better solution is a workaround: Keep the “electoral college” as our forefathers dictated (but never named), and pass what is called an “interstate compact” that works around that monster.
It's already established!
And, guess what: Such a compact is already established and has already won the commitment of 17 states! In addition, another seven states have moved this interstate compact forward in their legislatures, but have not yet adopted it. It’s called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Any state that signs on simply commits all its electoral votes in a presidential election to the candidate who wins the most votes nationally, from all Americans, regardless of who the winner was in its own state.
Now, you might recall that, including all 50 states and DC, a national election has 538 electoral votes at stake. So, to win a simple majority, a candidate must win no fewer than 270 of those votes nationally. With 17 states plus DC signed on now, we have 209 of those 270 votes already committed to recognizing the national winner over its own state winner. If enough additional states were to sign this compact to ensure another 61 electoral votes for the national winner, every vote in every state would actually count.
The state of Wisconsin has 10 national reps: 2 senators and 8 representatives. If our state would sign on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, we would add 10 more votes to the 209 already secured. Clearly, we need other states to sign on. So far, NPVIC has been passed in Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Minnesota, Illinois, New York, New Hampshire, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia. And it’s been introduced and seriously considered in seven others. In Wisconsin, NPVIC has been introduced numerous times; it’s just never become an actual bill for consideration.
I want every presidential vote in every state to be equal, and I want the candidate with the most popular votes nationally to win the presidency. Don’t you? I want voters in all states to feel like voting matters. Forget the “red” state and “blue” state hangup – I want presidential candidates to consider all Americans their constituents and all states their “battleground.”
So, there you have it: I support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Will you?
